Direct Instruction or Inquiry-Based Learning? 

Can we settle the debate over direct instruction versus inquiry-based learning? 

If you follow educators on Twitter, you might have noticed an ongoing debate around direct instruction versus inquiry learning. Educators cannot even agree on what to name this debate: Direct Instruction (DI) versus direct instruction (di), explicit versus constructivist, sage on the stage versus guide on the side, teacher-led versus student-led, lecture versus discovery, and passive versus active learning. 

The National Institute for Direct Instruction defines Direct Instruction as “a model for teaching that emphasizes well-developed and carefully planned lessons designed around small learning increments and clearly defined and prescribed teaching tasks. It is based on the theory that clear instruction eliminating misinterpretations can greatly improve and accelerate learning.”

Author Heather Wolpert-Gawron defines inquiry learning as “more than asking a student what he or she wants to know. It’s about triggering curiosity. And activating a student’s curiosity is, I would argue, a far more important and complex goal than mere information delivery.” 

Spoiler alert, there is no absolute right answer on which method is better. Academic studies on the issue only further complicate the debate.

What the Research Says

There is some research regarding direct instruction vs. inquiry-based learning: 

Choosing Between Direct Instruction and Inquiry-Based Learning

Author, teacher, and consultant Liesl McConchie tweeted, “When we pit two instructional theories against each other (ie. direct instruction vs. inquiry) the biggest loser is student learning. They both have merit. Stop taking sides. Instead, grapple with thoughtful Qs: when is it best, under what conditions, for whom, etc.?”

But how does the aforementioned conflicting research help a teacher decide when, where, and to whom to employ which method? Author and education consultant Andrew Watson concludes in a Learning & the Brain post, “We teachers should learn about the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches, but only we can decide what will work best for these students and this material on this day.” 

As an example, a teacher might start class with a small-group exploration of matching cards displaying linear graphs and written scenarios. This activity might be followed up by an engaging mini-lesson on positive and negative slopes. While the students work in groups on a thinking task, the teacher can rotate to deliver on-the-fly lessons for students needing clarification. Planning a lesson with this much variety is not easy because the teacher’s actions are shaped by student feedback. 

Think of content-delivery methods as being like the options at a salad bar. You want to fill your plate with greens, a serving of protein, and a drizzle of dressing. A plate of just one of these might leave you unsatisfied. Furthermore, the same salad every day would get quite boring, too. Can we as educators all decide to end the debate and spend our energy creating lessons with a healthy variety of methods that serve the learning needs of our students?